New!

THe Smithsonian:

The original arguments Congress made for 'springing ahead' have been thoroughly debunked.
So why are they still being used today?

February 11, 2018

At last the European Parliament speaks ofputting an end to daylight saving time

A
resolution of the European Parliament questions daylight saving time, considering the
numerous citizen oppositions and ill effects on health, while daylight saving time
has no proved benefits (links to science studies).

So we can hope that this is at last the end of this abberation...
if we don't have, as usual, some fossil administraillon coming along in the last seconds
with a veto, while repeating mechanically that daylight saving time saves energy.

BASIC DEFINITIONS

Time (hour) is a way to recognize the various moments of a day,
with naming them with a number. It is a convention. Other
conventions are possible.

As days have a length which varies with the seasons,
an easy beacon is the middle of the day (Mid-day, middle of
the day) where the sun culminates, or the middle of the night
(mid-night). Starting from here, a division in 24 hours gives solar
time (table 1) or sun
time, which does not depend on the season, but only of the daily
path of the sun in the sky.

This solar time being unique to each point
of the Earth, the globe was divided in 24 time zones, each
with a one hour offset from the previous. The absolute reference is
the TU Time (the exact solar time in the Greenwich
observatory, near London, formerly known as Greenwich Time or GMT)

Table 1-- Solar
time and the seasons

Night

Day

Night

In several countries like
France the legal time (table 2) has an offset with solar time, one hour in winter
(winter time) and two hours in summer (daylight saving time). This
has consequences on our real time, as we are submitted to the legal
working time.

The today french winter time (German
time zone) was imposed at the occasion of the invasion in 1940. Today
french daylight saving time (time zone of Ukraine, Romania, Turkey...) was imposed
by the president Giscard d'Estaing, in 1975.

Table
2 --- French legal time

Nuit

Jour

Nuit

TO ELIMINATE CONFUSIONS

As we can check on table
3 and Table 4, TO GET UP
AT 8 IN DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME IS DEFINITELY THE SAME THING THAN TO GET UP AT 6
WITH THE SOLAR TIME. The difference is only THE NUMBER WE GIVE TO THE
DIFFERENT MOMENTS OF THE DAY.

Table 3 ---
daylight saving time without changing
working time

Tableau 4 ---
changing working time
without daylight saving time

Night

Day

Night

Legal
working time

Time
with artificial light

It clearly appears of these tables that to modify the
working time, without changing the legal time, lead to exactly the
same result than to introduce daylight saving time.

Any discussion which does not account with this elementary
point, such as for instance «I like daylight saving time because we get
up early», is marred with confusion: Really nobody forbids us
to get up sooner with the winter time, or in solar time. If for instance
we get up with the sun, we do not need to look at the clock for this.
That it indicates 5 at daylight saving time or 7 solar time changes nothing.

And, should it be said, there is no parapsychology
nor science fiction in the suppression or addition of one hour to
the day. The matter is only to change the numbers of the moments of
the day, without modifying the path of the Sun, nor that of time itself.
No administration is able to really add or suppress time. Happily!

THE ARGUMENT OF ENERGY SAVINGS

This part was completely rwritten in October 24, 2003

Initially, in France, daylight saving time was presented by the
Giscard government as a mean to save energy, with the obligation made
to everybody to work during the day, when there is no need of artificial
light. (This lie is always used, see the official site of the
ministère de l'industrie).
The question of the real efficiency of such a measure was examined
by the french Senate,
who is not really convinced. To begin, the Senate was excluded of
the debate with a dubious pretext. (See their
page). Then the figure of savings proposed by the ADEME (0,5%
of the total consumption at that epoch, 0,3% today) would simply not
account what is lost when people must get up earlier in the morning,
and heat the houses after the night! (My daughter had to get up at
four the Monday morning to go to school!). Especially in October,
when the Sun rises later.

In facts the kind of measures which were taken at that
time to «save energy» (such as to suppress the automatic door opening
in airports, or to remove the lights of Christmas garlands!) were
clearly types of gadgets, meaningless, just to give an image, just
a bluff. It however was possible at that epoch to do significant
energy savings, with transportation of merchandises by train and container,
railroad highway (cars in trains, as in the Channel tunnel). As soon
as this epoch it would have be possible to produce energy with offshore
windmills, or with
aerothermical power stations (as powerful as nuclear power plants,
much cheaper, without any risk, like the one in construction in Australia)
Today we speak of cracking oil (To continue to use fossil oil, but
only the hydrogen fraction, which does not make pollution) and even
the french Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique developed a process
of cheap thermochemistry
(to produce fuels from sun heat) but never did anything with it!!
Because it would have made its nuclear power plants obsolete?

But, completely against these elementary common sense
measures, they continued to promote the all-electric heating of
houses, the all-highways transportation, both very expensive and energy
intensive. Still today the various government which passed still not
have any real energy policy, and continue to stray into suicidal dead
ends (oil, nuclear power), continue to remove railways, or to promote
a maximum waste: one-use packages, motorways, stupid opposition to
containers, electric heating... despite the blatant emergency of dangerous
climate changes (excess heat in 2003). So it is quite clear that energy
savings were definitively not the true motive of daylight saving time, nor
of its creation neither of its maintaining today.

But what left me aghast is that, while supposing that
getting up earlier would really save energy, we could obtain exactly
the same result with a modification of the legal working time, without
disturbing the clocks. This is really visible on table 3
and Table 4 above, where
the legal working time is in purple, and the hours with artificial
lighting in yellow. There would even be some common sense to start
the day with the sun. So it is absolutely not «necessary» to have
daylight saving time to save energy.

ECONOMY ARGUMENTS

Think for instance to train time schedules. A night train
usually doing his path from 23h to 0h should, the day of time change,
do his path instantaneously. As this is impossible, railway companies
must have special schedules for this night. It is clear that this
kind of juggling, multiplied by the number of public services and
companies, has a cost: that of all the work of management, of all
the induced perturbations. However we see no field of economy where
this can bring any benefit.

THE COMPUTERS ARGUMENTS

Recently (2000) in France, the Jospin government refused
to suppress daylight saving time, giving for reason that computers would
be already programmed. At very first, computers are basically
programmable at will. With Windows, for instance, to check a box
is enough to make disappear daylight saving time. Then, we can wonder if it
is really wise that computers dictate us our life rhythm.
Here again it clearly was only a pretext. And a really poor one...

We can note that Windows 95 was still
giving the exact dates of daylight saving time more than six years
after its creation. That proves that these dates were in fact planned
since long ago.

TIME AND HEALTH

An interesting argument pro daylight saving time is that it is
normal to get up earlier in summer, or to wake with the day. But,
once again, this result can be obtained without changing time. It
is enough to get up with the sun, as do the majority of us when we
do not have an imposed schedule.

Many opinions are possible, but it is difficult to take
position, for the simple reason that we are not all equal.

AS a matter of facts the circadian rhythm (estimation
of time by the body) theoretically synchronizes itself with the light
of the day. But certain persons can synchronize differently, sooner
or later. They even cannot synchronize at all, and pass by periods with
insomnia accompanied with dizziness during the day (ask for a specialist
physician in this case).

This is the reason why we must abstain to take a too
hard line on a matter such as the time. This would only disadvantage
some, without bringing real benefit to the others.

The European
Council
however effectively noted health problems related to time change,
especially on more sensitive persons, young children or elders,
who have more difficulty to synchronize. A health tip which can be useful
to some, is to look at a strong light, for instance a pocket lamp, at
the time where we want to get up. This helps to synchronize our rhythm
with the chosen time. (Beware: to directly stare at the sun is dangerous).

The only conclusions that we can draw are:

- We are not all equal;

- Time changes other than natural are
always source of trouble, especially on more vulnerable persons,
school children or elders;

- Thus we cannot impose to everybody
artificial variations of the daily rhythm.

THOSE WHO WANT TO LIVE WITH THE SUN

Some persons are spontaneously in favour of daylight saving time,
without any argumentation or administrative reason. The most striking
argument is to want TO LIVE WITH THE LIGHT (See this cool site)
rather than living in the grey or at night! It is true that the night
sky of the towns, above their deceiptive lights, rather looks like
the cieling of hell... Once again, the argument is true, but the conclusion
false: there is definitively no need to disturb the clocks to get
up when the sun call us. Those who work have a few time in the morning,
in place of the evening, that they can use to hear at the song of
blackbirds or do their spiritual practices, as it is the best moment
for this.

Other more populist arguments such as security are sometimes
evoked, but they can far too easily be put upside down. We shall anyway
note that security is not a matter of time, but of police (do not
tolerate fascist gangs in cities, etc...) and of society (to avoid that children
suffer of family problems, to integrate ghettos, etc...)

FEELINGS

If choosing a time was only a matter of social or economic
conventions, there would be no real meaning to discuss about daylight saving
time, and no really valid argument nor to impose it, neither to oppose
it.

The problem is that our lives are not made only of work
and money. Our lives are also made of emotions, ambiences, feelings.
What that certain bureaucrats prudishly call the «quality of
life», just to clearly mean that for them it is really insignificant.
But, whatever these sirs like it or not, this domain is not accessory,
it is the main, that of our profound motives, of our feelings, of
the meaning we intend to give to our lives. Work and money? Means,
nothing more. It is not the point here to despise these means, but, in
any good management, the purposes always pass before the means.

So each moment of the day has its ambient, its colour
of light, its vibration. This is accounted for in the Hindu musical
system of the ragas, which each mach with a moment of the day, with
an ambience. It is also what I explain in my novel
«The Gardens of Aeoliah» when the characters, in place of
flatly give numbers to the hours, give them poetical names such as
«the dew hour», «the merry hour»,
«the indigo hour», etc.

Our intuitive feeling of time synchronizes itself on
this perception. Midday is a handy mark, as it always marks the middle
of the day, whatever the season. Before midday, we are nearer of the
morning, the largest is still ahead; after midday we are nearer the
evening. At midday, the sun is on the south, at at its maximum of
height and heat. Usually midday is the time of the main meal, it is
a pause where we have to stop the activities of the morning. It shares
the day in two equal parts, which use can be different. Midnight is
when we change of day.

The clocks, with their accuracy, tend to be a much more powerful indicator
than the poetical feeling, or even than the position
of the sun (not always visible). If the clocks only confirm the natural
marks, there is no problem. But if what indicates the clock is too
much biased relative to the feeling, or if this changes all the time,
so our nervous system gets completely lost. This is precisely what
happens with the daylight saving time, where the midday meal is if fact taken
at 11, see at 10 in countries like France. In the middle of the day,
the clock indicates 14. Of this contradiction arises this feeling
of disorder, of slovenliness, that we feel with daylight saving time, similar
to that of the jet lag, or to what we feel when we live a disorderly
life (sleeping and eating at any time). This feeling of
being off the ambiences of the day will certainly not disturb
certain bureaucrats, who anyway are already accustomed to live completely out
of reality, but I however hope that to PROVOKE such a feeling was
not the real purpose of daylight saving time...

This is the basic reason why I oppose
daylight saving time: the realities of life, feelings, poetry, daily happiness,
must pass before the so-called administrative and economy constrains.
These constrains are, at best, only means, when our daily happiness
is of the domain of the PURPOSES.

THE MADNESS UNVEILED: STRADDLING THE TWO HEMISPHERES

Added November 2007

When we try to work in an international organisation, it is already difficult enough to
have common meetings with people living in different time zones.
Time shifts further complicate things, as some people change, others not.
But the summit of weirdness is reached when we work with the two hemispheres, North and South.
As in this case, while some people ADVANCE toward summer time, others go BACKWARD toward
winter time! We never better understand the foolishness of this system, than when a dayly
or weekly meeting suddenly becomes impossible because some members are suddenly
shifted of TWO HOURS!!!

It is high time to put an end to these absurd practices and to come back
to a rationnal time.

The solutions

It is clear that, in order to account with the various true technical,
economical or poetical arguments, we have to keep a
stable legal time, which does not dance the gigue. What I should
say is that each country must adopt a stable time all the year
round, which must be as close as possible from the solar time of the
place. If a country like France could adopt the time of its time
zone (that of before 1940, which is also the TU time), the maximum
discrepensy between solar time and legal time would be only 34 minutes,
which is perfectly acceptable (our intuitive perception is not so
accurate!) A country like Nepal cuts hairs in four, with an offset
of 45 minutes relative to its time zone. The problem of large countries
which cover several time zones was well managed in the USA, where
the legal time zones were set as close as possible of the true solar
time zones, accounting with the state limits. China is the worse example:
everybody is at the Beijing time, to the east of the territory, and
in the chinese colonies in Turkestan, clocks say midday when in reality
it is... 9!

Human arguments tell us to live the day (See this
cool site)
and this to get up early, usually with the sun. However nothing should
be considered as «normal» and imposed to everybody.

The variation of the sunrise time may lead us to have
a variable legal working time, while keeping a constant legal time,
as in Table 4.
The fact of having clocks which does
not dance the gigue absolutely not forbid us to adapt our schedules
to the season. But so, when we go at work at six, we know that it
is six, and that, after a four hours work session, it is still ten,
not yet the time of the meal.

A very interesting experience in my
life was a scout camp dedicated to the learning of various techniques,
every activity of «work» or «leisure» being accurately scheduled
all the day long, without dead times. This gave me the feeling to
have days twice as long than usual, without being tired or bored.
However when we live a disorderly life, the day is already finished
when we just get up. Yeah, a free method to live twice more time!

In fact, it is all our living standard that we
should rethink:

To get up earlier, and for this, to go to bed
earlier! This is not only an affair of working time, but also
of television programs, spectacles, concerts, etc... and even
the sport, we hardly see what interest to make sport at night! Here
is a domain where administration and politicians could make an useful
use of their authority: to manage the access to culture and social
life, in such a way that it would not be forbidden to all those who must get up early
to go at work! Let us also think at this, managers of associations,
clubs, spiritual centres...

As long as we speak of time, we can here
criticize the bourgeois opening time of many banks, administrations and public
services, which open only during working hours, so that the immense
majority of workers must miss work for every trite paper. It is clear that
these services must open at other times,
even if they need to engage half time workers for this.

To be accurate, to get up with the day would imply to
work less in winter. Or, more accurately to consecrate oneself to
more family activities. It is how peoples lived before the invention
of artificial lighting.

Longer mornings can lead to work only the morning, or
to have the morning as a personal time, without work.
One day or another administrations will have, willingly or not, to
account with the fact that morning soon is the best moment to meditate.
Already the Sunday was reserved for prayer. But this, it is not the
administrations which forgot it...

POLL!

May we have:

Constant time

or variable (daylight saving time)

blank vote:

May we have as a fixed
base:

Solar time

or a time difference
( +1h in France)

blank vote:

To get up early, we
must go to bed early, and thus social and cultural life (reunions,
conferences, good movies, cultural or scientific TV programmes...)
must not be late the evening. To do so, may we:

Take authority measures

or keep liberal

blank vote:

Note: to avoid cheating duplicate votes shall be rejected

Results

Results from 2002 to 2011

A large majority (78%) opposes variable time.
An about two third majority favours solar time,
but the one hour offset still has adepts.
With only 24% to regulate time for concerts and spectacles,
workers will still have to do without culture.
There is no significant variation along these ten years,
save a small augmentation of adepts of solar time, since 2004

The
European council criticizes the countries which live with a
time lag of one, see two hours relative to their true timezone (solar
time), independently of the fact that this lag changes with the season.
Ecological problems (ill placed pollution surges), or about health
(disturbed bio rythms, sleep troubles) especially of the most vulnerable
persons (children, elder people...) The council asks for the european
countries to come back to their true timezone, even when they keep daylight saving
time.